❇️ // Pinned Comment: If you have a question about a play, adding a timestamp (MM:SS format) makes a huge difference in our ability to respond. SUPPORT THE SHOW: abetterofficial.com/coffee?yt A BETTER OFFICIAL HAS VIDEO TRAINING: abetterofficial.com/getbetter FREE TRAINING FOR NEW OFFICIALS: abetterofficial.com/newofficials Here is our linktree for additional content and communication avenues: linktr.ee/betterofficials
Great show as always Greg! The bonus play, looked like she released the ball after the 0.00 on the clock. I'm sure tv clock wasn't accurate. Looked to me she was still going up asclock hit 0.00. 🎉
18:10 How I like to explain it: If the "Leaving the court" action would NOT have resulted in a violation last year, then if the player is the first to touch (after that action) it will NOT result in a violation this year either
On play 3 the time out play, it looks like the calling official has the whistle in his hand and the ball becomes loose as he is putting it in his mouth to call the timeout.
Thanks for the bonus play that I sent in to you. I watched this a few times and then realized she put the ball to the floor but her leg sort of hinders a clean sight on this. So yes, great play no traveling. But thanks for showing this.
First of all, I love this channel! On Play #5 I don’t see the arm of the player (white Jersey) being the reason why the the black jersey fell. His hip was way higher than #20, loosing balance when both players collided on the air. Fully understanding the importance of safety, at the same time I never punish a taller or stronger player on a legal attempt of rebounding.
I think you both have the wrong player in white. White number 0(? I cant tell for sure) his left leg extends and sweeps the right leg of blue out from under him. Causing him to fall backwards on his way down.
@@nicholasruggles1656 I see what you mean...player falling towards the right of the video, his leg is behind another player but could have swept the guy.
Bonus play , the clock was at zero before the shot was released. No basket and we go to overtime but the play must be reviewed by replay to get the call right.Must be nice to have replay!
I know it may appear that way you cannot trust the on-screen clock. I'm sure the officials on the game went to the monitor to ensure it was off Timely.
On the bonus play: How is that not a travel? I agree it’s an exciting play but she ends her dribble with right foot on the floor, makes a step back move lifting her right foot, left comes down then the pivot. Am I missing something or are we just passing because it’s an exciting play and we want this in the game?
@@deankirkpatrick7658 this is the problem. Traveling has been a POE 3 of the last 5 years. So one side is saying we need to clean it up. Then we breakdown a play and say “no that’s not a travel”. Let’s be honest, it’s a travel, not even close; BUT it’s not a call we want to make at that time of the game. I can live with that. To be honest not sure any would have called it, but to say it’s not a travel when you break it down, sends a bad message. This is where it’s frustrating for officials. One side has it as POE the real world says, look the other way.
She alights off of one foot and lands on two feet. That is legal action. Did the two feet actually land simultaneously or was there a fraction of a second between them?
9-3-3: End of game team has all players out of bounds for an inbound. 4 players run 4 verticals, inbounder passes ball into one of his teammates. Is this a 9-3-3 violation? All players started out bound of their own volition.
Thank you! Would you consider this play legal in NFHS too? I know NCAA used the "approximately the same time" in the pre-season instructions; but there is no clear instruction from NFHS on "land simutanuerouly". A lot of NFHS refs would consider jump-stop like this will be Travel.
In regards to rule 9-3-3, what if A1 who is inbounding the ball, passes the ball to A2, who is inbounds. A2 receives the ball and then passes the ball back to A1, who is still standing out of bounds. A1 jumps up prior to catching the ball and lands in bounds. Do we have this violation since A1 wasn’t out of bounds voluntarily for a throw in? Or does he have to establish being inbounds prior to touching the ball?
Your scenario sounds like a simple out of bounds violation. A player without a bounds status contacting the basketball is a violation. Am I missing something? In any event 9-3-3 would have no relevance to a thrower.
@@BetterOfficials Nope, you covered it. 9-3-3 made me think of the thrower coming out of bounds and touching but correct, not relevant to 9-3-3. Thanks!
In play 4, how many times did point guard dribble *after wing came back in bounds? So, literally, wing player voluntarily left, came back in but because dribbler was still dribbling the wing was by definition not the first to touch the ball. Point guard literally had to pass the ball.
@@BetterOfficialsOkay, but then you might need to make that more clear in the video (though to be fair, I have to rely on transcript and CC as I watch this without sound). When I think of "first person to touch", that is often used to describe a scenario where the ball is not being touched by anyone else and then *is touched*. In fact, the language you used, itself, is pretty clear that in play #2, the wing receiving the ball *cannot* be the first person to touch the ball because someone passed him the ball. Maybe the rule language is more explicit? Thank you for the conversation
If in a marked lane and they are touching the opponent - how is this not a lane violation? Not touching is nothing. I don't think I have ever called it, that way - just reminded them not to touch - maybe I am wrong.
❇️ // Pinned Comment: If you have a question about a play, adding a timestamp (MM:SS format) makes a huge difference in our ability to respond.
SUPPORT THE SHOW: abetterofficial.com/coffee?yt
A BETTER OFFICIAL HAS VIDEO TRAINING: abetterofficial.com/getbetter
FREE TRAINING FOR NEW OFFICIALS: abetterofficial.com/newofficials
Here is our linktree for additional content and communication avenues: linktr.ee/betterofficials
Blue touched tipped it as well and still had team control that looks like backcourt.
Play #5 Big time travel missed on drive to basket
Great show as always Greg! The bonus play, looked like she released the ball after the 0.00 on the clock. I'm sure tv clock wasn't accurate. Looked to me she was still going up asclock hit 0.00.
🎉
18:10
How I like to explain it:
If the "Leaving the court" action would NOT have resulted in a violation last year, then if the player is the first to touch (after that action) it will NOT result in a violation this year either
On play 3 the time out play, it looks like the calling official has the whistle in his hand and the ball becomes loose as he is putting it in his mouth to call the timeout.
Thanks for the bonus play that I sent in to you. I watched this a few times and then realized she put the ball to the floor but her leg sort of hinders a clean sight on this. So yes, great play no traveling. But thanks for showing this.
First of all, I love this channel! On Play #5 I don’t see the arm of the player (white Jersey) being the reason why the the black jersey fell. His hip was way higher than #20, loosing balance when both players collided on the air. Fully understanding the importance of safety, at the same time I never punish a taller or stronger player on a legal attempt of rebounding.
I think it was absolutely a good no call.
I think you both have the wrong player in white. White number 0(? I cant tell for sure) his left leg extends and sweeps the right leg of blue out from under him. Causing him to fall backwards on his way down.
@@nicholasruggles1656 I see what you mean...player falling towards the right of the video, his leg is behind another player but could have swept the guy.
Bonus play , the clock was at zero before the shot was released. No basket and we go to overtime but the play must be reviewed by replay to get the call right.Must be nice to have replay!
Very nice indeed.
I remember Refereeing Caitlan Clark in HS. Pretty cool she has got even better
On play 5 almost looks like ball handler travels takes 3 steps
Greg, on the Caitlin Clark game-winning shot, time had expired before the ball left her hand.
I know it may appear that way you cannot trust the on-screen clock. I'm sure the officials on the game went to the monitor to ensure it was off Timely.
I had this same exact play happen to me. I had the correct call. The other officials said it was a violation.
Play 5, White 0 looks like he swiped Blue #2's leg mid air. Incidental or should we have a foul?
On the bonus play: How is that not a travel? I agree it’s an exciting play but she ends her dribble with right foot on the floor, makes a step back move lifting her right foot, left comes down then the pivot. Am I missing something or are we just passing because it’s an exciting play and we want this in the game?
It was - but that was not the lesson he wanted to cover.
@@deankirkpatrick7658 this is the problem. Traveling has been a POE 3 of the last 5 years. So one side is saying we need to clean it up. Then we breakdown a play and say “no that’s not a travel”. Let’s be honest, it’s a travel, not even close; BUT it’s not a call we want to make at that time of the game. I can live with that. To be honest not sure any would have called it, but to say it’s not a travel when you break it down, sends a bad message. This is where it’s frustrating for officials. One side has it as POE the real world says, look the other way.
She alights off of one foot and lands on two feet. That is legal action.
Did the two feet actually land simultaneously or was there a fraction of a second between them?
Hah! I got my plays mixed up. No way anyone is calling that travel in that shot. I was thinking of the play where he went down hard. (play #5)
The real scenario-is the ball in flight before the end of period signal?
9-3-3: End of game team has all players out of bounds for an inbound. 4 players run 4 verticals, inbounder passes ball into one of his teammates. Is this a 9-3-3 violation? All players started out bound of their own volition.
Throw-ins have their own rules and restrictions. 9-3-3 has no relevance
In the last play, do you consider the player's feet landed "approximately the same time"?
Yes. Yes I do.
Thank you! Would you consider this play legal in NFHS too? I know NCAA used the "approximately the same time" in the pre-season instructions; but there is no clear instruction from NFHS on "land simutanuerouly". A lot of NFHS refs would consider jump-stop like this will be Travel.
In regards to rule 9-3-3, what if A1 who is inbounding the ball, passes the ball to A2, who is inbounds. A2 receives the ball and then passes the ball back to A1, who is still standing out of bounds. A1 jumps up prior to catching the ball and lands in bounds. Do we have this violation since A1 wasn’t out of bounds voluntarily for a throw in? Or does he have to establish being inbounds prior to touching the ball?
Your scenario sounds like a simple out of bounds violation. A player without a bounds status contacting the basketball is a violation. Am I missing something? In any event 9-3-3 would have no relevance to a thrower.
@@BetterOfficials Nope, you covered it. 9-3-3 made me think of the thrower coming out of bounds and touching but correct, not relevant to 9-3-3. Thanks!
Greg I disagree on the bonus play no travel call.
As in you feel that was an obvious traveling violation that should be called?
❤
In play 4, how many times did point guard dribble *after wing came back in bounds? So, literally, wing player voluntarily left, came back in but because dribbler was still dribbling the wing was by definition not the first to touch the ball. Point guard literally had to pass the ball.
Everything you point out is true, but this is a violation by rule.
@@BetterOfficialsOkay, but then you might need to make that more clear in the video (though to be fair, I have to rely on transcript and CC as I watch this without sound). When I think of "first person to touch", that is often used to describe a scenario where the ball is not being touched by anyone else and then *is touched*. In fact, the language you used, itself, is pretty clear that in play #2, the wing receiving the ball *cannot* be the first person to touch the ball because someone passed him the ball. Maybe the rule language is more explicit?
Thank you for the conversation
❤❤❤❤
Clearly tipped.
Yup, Play #2 is a lane violation. Ball is dead immediately and cancels the throw.
If in a marked lane and they are touching the opponent - how is this not a lane violation? Not touching is nothing. I don't think I have ever called it, that way - just reminded them not to touch - maybe I am wrong.